NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, with the former built on Turing architecture and the latter on Kepler. The benchmark data shows a decisive generational shift in performance, yet the Quadro’s larger memory pool and professional positioning keep the comparison from being entirely one-sided. The RTX 2070 SUPER posts a 251% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL (83358 vs 23749) and a 256.7% higher score in Geekbench Vulkan (90637 vs 25409), winning both head-to-head tests. These are not marginal gains; the Turing card more than triples the K6000’s compute throughput in both APIs, suggesting that architectural efficiency and clock speed advantages compound into massive real-world differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmarks between these GPUs are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the results are stark. In OpenCL, the RTX 2070 SUPER scores 83358 compared to the K6000’s 23749, a delta of 251%. This means the newer card delivers roughly 3.5 times the raw compute performance in this cross-platform API. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: 90637 versus 25409, a 256.7% advantage. Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the RTX 2070 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 20282 places it just 1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480), while the K6000’s average of 19030 sits within 0.4% of the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18954). The percentile rankings reinforce this gap: the RTX 2070 SUPER sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the K6000 is in the 63rd.

What is striking is not just the magnitude of the RTX 2070 SUPER’s wins, but the consistency. Both OpenCL and Vulkan show the same pattern, indicating that the advantage is not API-specific but rather a fundamental throughput difference. The K6000’s higher shading unit count—2880 versus 2560—does not compensate for its much lower clock speeds and older architecture. The data suggests that the RTX 2070 SUPER’s 9.062 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the K6000’s 5.196 TFLOPS translates directly into benchmark dominance, with the Turing card’s boost clock of 1770 MHz nearly doubling the K6000’s 902 MHz boost clock.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 2070 SUPER in OpenCL compute?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER scores 83358 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 251% higher than the Quadro K6000’s 23749. This represents more than a threefold improvement in raw compute performance.

Q: Does the Quadro K6000 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the RTX 2070 SUPER wins both available tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan). The K6000 has no benchmark wins in this dataset.

Q: Why does the K6000 have more shading units but perform worse?

A: The K6000 has 2880 shading units versus 2560 on the RTX 2070 SUPER, but its base clock is 797 MHz and boost is 902 MHz, compared to 1605 MHz and 1770 MHz respectively. The RTX 2070 SUPER’s higher clocks and newer Turing architecture more than offset the K6000’s raw unit count.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The K6000 has more capacity but significantly lower bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to immediate rivals?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER’s average score of 20282 is 1.2% behind the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534) and 1.3% behind the Intel Arc B570 (20556). The K6000’s average of 19030 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19036, 0% delta).

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the RTX 2070 SUPER and Quadro K6000 are listed as end-of-life products, though they were released years apart—the K6000 in July 2013 and the RTX 2070 SUPER in July 2019.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The RTX 2070 SUPER uses the TU104 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, packing 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die. The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip on a 28 nm TSMC process, with 7,080 million transistors on a slightly larger 561 mm² die. This means the RTX 2070 SUPER achieves a transistor density of 25.0M per mm², exactly double the K6000’s 12.6M per mm². The newer process node allows for far more complex logic in the same physical space.

Turing brings features that Kepler lacks entirely. The RTX 2070 SUPER includes 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. The K6000 has neither. The RTX 2070 SUPER also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Memory technology differs as well: GDDR6 on the RTX 2070 SUPER versus GDDR5 on the K6000, with effective data rates of 14 Gbps versus 6 Gbps. The RTX 2070 SUPER’s FP16 throughput of 18.12 TFLOPS (2:1) is a Turing capability; the K6000 has no FP16 data. These are not incremental improvements but a complete redesign of the GPU pipeline.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge on nearly every measurable field. Clock speeds: the RTX 2070 SUPER runs at 1605 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, while the K6000 runs at 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. Memory bandwidth: 448.0 GB/s for the RTX 2070 SUPER versus 288.4 GB/s for the K6000. The RTX 2070 SUPER has 64 ROPs and 160 TMUs; the K6000 has 48 ROPs and 240 TMUs. Pixel rate favors the RTX 2070 SUPER at 113.3 GPixel/s versus 54.12 GPixel/s, while texture rate is closer: 283.2 GTexel/s versus 216.5 GTexel/s.

Power delivery differs: the RTX 2070 SUPER requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector, while the K6000 uses 2x 6-pin. TDP is similar at 215 W for the RTX 2070 SUPER and 225 W for the K6000, with both recommending a 550 W PSU. Display outputs are another split: the RTX 2070 SUPER offers 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C, whereas the K6000 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. Physical dimensions are nearly identical in length (267 mm), but the RTX 2070 SUPER is slightly taller at 116 mm versus 111 mm and has a defined width of 35 mm, while the K6000’s width is not specified.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 2070 SUPER wins in every compute benchmark available, making it the clear choice for raw performance, gaming, and modern API workloads. Its 2560 shading units, 40 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores give it capabilities that the K6000 cannot match, particularly in ray-traced scenes or AI-accelerated tasks. The 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 9.062 TFLOPS FP32 throughput mean it handles high-resolution textures and complex shaders with ease. For anyone running DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan 1.4 applications, the RTX 2070 SUPER is the only one of the two that supports these modern standards.

The Quadro K6000’s strengths are more niche but still present. Its 12 GB of GDDR5 memory exceeds the RTX 2070 SUPER’s 8 GB, which could benefit workloads that require massive datasets that fit within a single frame buffer. The 384-bit bus, while slower per-clock, offers a wider path for data. The K6000 also has more TMUs (240 versus 160), which could theoretically help in texturing-heavy tasks, though its lower clock speeds undermine this advantage. The 2x DVI outputs may be relevant for legacy display setups that modern cards cannot drive directly. Its 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth are still respectable for a card from 2013, but they are firmly in the past.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER outperforms the Quadro K6000 by 251% in OpenCL and 256.7% in Vulkan, with a higher average benchmark score (20282 versus 19030) and a higher percentile ranking (65 versus 63). Anyone needing maximum compute throughput, modern API support, or ray tracing capability should choose the RTX 2070 SUPER. Its launch MSRP was 499 USD, and it delivers over three times the performance of the K6000 in shared tests.

The Quadro K6000, with its launch MSRP of 5,265 USD, makes sense only for a very specific user: someone who needs 12 GB of VRAM, 2x DVI outputs, and does not require fast memory bandwidth or modern feature sets. Its 2880 shading units and 240 TMUs are architectural relics, and its 28 nm process means it cannot compete on efficiency or raw speed. The K6000’s average score of 19030 places it near the RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, -0.1% delta), which is a laptop part, highlighting how far desktop GPUs have advanced.

For virtually all workloads, the RTX 2070 SUPER is the superior choice. The only scenario where the K6000 might be preferable is if the application absolutely requires more than 8 GB of memory and cannot use the RTX 2070 SUPER’s faster GDDR6. But with the RTX 2070 SUPER’s 65th percentile standing and 256.7% Vulkan lead, the choice is clear for compute, gaming, or professional 3D work on modern APIs.